Real Reform at the UNITED NATIONS.

The United States presidency of the Security Council in January 2000 was a good indication of what could be, with strong and consistent leadership from the world's remaining superpower. The Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, deserves great credit for this demonstration of leadership. Still, one is left with the image of a Clinton Administration anxious to do what is expected, yet held back by legislative restrictions and a lack of resources, writes J. Brian Atwood, Executive Vice-President, Citizens Energy Corporation (United States).

The United States can no longer claim, as it could during its decade-long experience with huge fiscal deficits, that its economy is undergoing "structural adjustment". Today, with the domestic debate focussing on how to spend a huge surplus, the issue is whether and how the country will engage creatively with the international community to preserve its interests and promote peace, prosperity and democracy. The United States' role at the United Nations should move to the centre of this debate.

The view expressed by Senator Jesse Helms before the Council in January is shared by a portion of the American electorate. However, polls show that the vast majority support international cooperation, engagement and the United Nations. This majority is not preoccupied with the loss of sovereign prerogative. The good news is that both presidential candidates share the majority view. They may have different approaches to foreign policy, but none would reject the United Nations as a vital vehicle for dispute resolution, dialogue and development.

The crucial issue is reform. On this, there is little consensus and no stomach for debating the merits in such a way as to forge a common policy, at least not during a political campaign. All organizations must change to remain relevant and effective in this era of globalization, and the UN is no exception.

The Secretary-General has recognized the need to adapt. Impressive steps have been taken to reduce waste and improve accountability, coordination and the effective delivery of services. Public/private partnerships have been pursued, and efforts are under way to use information technology creatively in the developing world. Yet, problems continue and the reform challenge remains.

I have some experience in attempting to reform a large institution. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was by no means as large as the United Nations, but it was just as controversial in some quarters. The first two years of our reform programme produced a reorganization, a better staff-to-mission ratio, a new results-orientation and a tighter strategic focus on the key elements of development. If we had not taken these steps, we might not have withstood the budget-balancing frenzy that swept Washington with the election of 1994. The last four-plus years of my tenure were spent cutting staff far beyond any sensible reform programme would warrant and defending USAID against those who would abolish it altogether or submerge it in the State Department. What passed for reform in those years was a yielding to budget pressures that had little to do with the ability of USAID to carry out its mission.

In fact, responding to challenges or opportunities in the development and humanitarian relief fields became extraordinarily difficult. Yet, so much more was expected of our overworked staff. Does this sound familiar?

Today, the United Nations is under instructions from its most powerful Member State to reform, and yet it is asked to do more with less. The United States has agreed to pay a portion of its back dues if the United Nations will lower the United States contribution from 25 to 20 per cent, further reform its procedures and cut its staff. Meanwhile, the United Nations missions and the workload of its individual agencies continue to expand. This state of affairs will not produce a more effective, better-coordinated, more accountable organization. These pressures will not produce reform; rather, they will produce an organization increasingly incapable of responding to the challenges and opportunities of the world we live in. Furthermore, the instructions the United Nations is receiving from its most powerful Member State are placing its least powerful members at serious risk.

I cannot believe this is what the current group of presidential candidates want. It is certainly not what the majority of the American people want. The growing diplomatic and peacekeeping agenda of the United Nations receives ample coverage in the press. Never before has the Security Council been so active. In recent months, it has wrestled with inspections in Iraq, reconstruction in Kosovo, election monitoring and peacekeeping in East Timor, and the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Multilateral diplomacy, with all of its difficulties, has become a principal tool of foreign ministries. The burden rests most heavily on the United Nations. Development challenges--the factors that often lead to crisis or conflict--receive less public attention. Yet, the United Nations system is withering under the pressures of development problems too numerous to describe in depth here. Five global issues strike me as central, and the United Nations and its specialized agencies are being overwhelmed by the humanitarian consequences of them:

* Global warming: As greenhouse gas emissions increase and create the warming "greenhouse effect", tides are rising, temperatures are increasing and weather-related disasters are creating more deaths, more destruction and more need for humanitarian response.

* The HIV/AIDS pandemic: 14 million people have already died in sub-Saharan Africa and at least 30 million more will die in the next 20 years, as each day 11,000 new HIV infections occur (add South and Southeast Asia and the numbers are even more shocking).

* Food insecurity: Though an adequate food supply exists on a global scale, serious food shortages and issues of access to food by the poor have increased the number of people living in a malnourished state to well over the 800 million cited at the 1998 World Food Summit.

* The youth explosion: Well over 50 per cent of the people living in the developing world are under the age of 21; the vast majority of those living in extreme poverty are young people.

* Extreme poverty: As globalization makes many in the West even richer, at least 1.3 billion people live in extreme poverty.

These five development issues represent major challenges for the international community and to the United Nations system; none of them can be solved by bilateral donor agencies alone. International cooperation between bilateral and multilateral donors is absolutely essential. As the number of people in these categories--the victims of natural disasters, the AIDS-infected, the extreme poor, the malnourished and the young poor--increases, the result is more conflict, more refugees and more instability. In turn, the demand for United Nations humanitarian relief, diplomatic intervention and peacekeeping increases.

My hope is that the marvellous display of American leadership the United Nations experienced in January will become a consensus United States position, supported by both political parties, and by Congress and the Executive Branch.

Winston Churchill once said he had great confidence in the American people: "They invariably do the right thing, after they have examined every other alternative."

We have tried ignoring the United Nations. We have tried criticizing it. We have tried applying pressure. We have tried reforming it by cutting its budget. Perhaps, we will next try to enhance its effectiveness by cooperating with its other Member States and paying our bills.